Veganism: I honestly don't understand it

[JoeTheJuggler]

How about this line of thinking: I contend that even meat eaters draw a line (based on moral principles) about what is OK and what is not OK to eat.

For example, few people are comfortable eating their pets (which are sort of honorary humans). Some people would draw that line at eating non-human primates. Even the Donner Party, when faced with the necessity of cannibalism for survival attempted to draw lines based on relatedness. (In a way, these are all questions of phylogeny. How recent a common ancestor do we have with potential food.)

Non meat-eaters just draw a different line. Some of us draw the line at animals (or even a subset of animals--those that have a face and a mother). Some won't eat any animal product.

At any rate, the fact that I am convinced that where I draw the line is right for me, it does not follow that I'm crusading to make others draw the same line. Nor does it mean that I think other lines are necessarily wrong.

I think there are few vegetarians and vegans who actually view the mistreatment and slaughter of animals as the moral equivalent of the same hypothetical treatment of humans. (It's similar to an argument made about most "pro-lifers"--if they really thought abortion is the equivalent of murder, wouldn't these wacko extremist clinic bombers and doctor-assassins be the only ones acting according to their beliefs?)

I for one do not think the mistreatment and slaughter of animals is the moral equivalent of the same treatment of humans. However, I also don't think my gustatory preference is enough to justify the mistreatment and slaughter of animals.

 

[GreNME]

How about this line of thinking: I contend that even meat eaters draw a line (based on moral principles) about what is OK and what is not OK to eat.

For example, few people are comfortable eating their pets (which are sort of honorary humans). Some people would draw that line at eating non-human primates. Even the Donner Party, when faced with the necessity of cannibalism for survival attempted to draw lines based on relatedness. (In a way, these are all questions of phylogeny. How recent a common ancestor do we have with potential food.)

Non meat-eaters just draw a different line. Some of us draw the line at animals (or even a subset of animals--those that have a face and a mother). Some won't eat any animal product.

At any rate, the fact that I am convinced that where I draw the line is right for me, it does not follow that I'm crusading to make others draw the same line. Nor does it mean that I think other lines are necessarily wrong.

Awesomely put, Mr. Juggler. That has the GreNME Seal of Approval™.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Awesomely put, Mr. Juggler. That has the GreNME Seal of Approval™.

Thank you. Since I'm an approval seeker, I might have to add that to my sig.

 

[theprestige]

It's similar to an argument made about most "pro-lifers"--if they really thought abortion is the equivalent of murder, wouldn't these wacko extremist clinic bombers and doctor-assassins be the only ones acting according to their beliefs?

That seems like a pretty bizarre conclusion to draw.

I believe that in most cases abortion--like most other instances of killing--is murder. But I also believe that in most cases, vigilantism is not the solution.

I'm also an advocate of the death penalty for certain crimes. But I am not an advocate of the lynch mob in cases where certain criminals are not subjected to the death penalty.

Are you sure you're not crafting a straw man to facilitate the ridicule of beliefs with which you disagree?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That seems like a pretty bizarre conclusion to draw.

I believe that in most cases abortion--like most other instances of killing--is murder. But I also believe that in most cases, vigilantism is not the solution.

I'm also an advocate of the death penalty for certain crimes. But I am not an advocate of the lynch mob in cases where certain criminals are not subjected to the death penalty.

Are you sure you're not crafting a straw man to facilitate the ridicule of beliefs with which you disagree?

No--I was making this point to show that I myself--though a vegetarian--recognize that I don't consider the killing of animals equivalent to the killing of humans. I recognize my moral position as my own preference, and not something I'm comfortable trying to impose on others. If I thought it was the same as killing humans, I doubt I'd be so laid back about it.

On the "abortion is murder" idea:

If you believed every one of the 1.37 million or so abortions in the U.S. and every one of the 42 million abortions worldwide per year is an act of murder, I would think you wouldn't be content to be a peaceful activist.

It would be far worse than the Holocaust! Wars have been fought over less than 42 million murders per year!

If you really thought these millions of abortions were the same as murder, maybe you wouldn't opt for vigilante justice, but I find it hard to believe you'd just write your Congressman or whatever it is you're currently doing about it.

 

[AWPrime]

So my question is, do you think living in houses and fixed communities and farming for sustenance is unnatural or against evolution?

The only difference was that they stayed in a fixed location and farmed.

A hunter gather existence is quite flexible and people from such can adapt to an agricultural one. However one can't go back. In other words the human species has become more specialized.

You need a better analogy.

 

[theprestige]

On the "abortion is murder" idea:

If you believed every one of the 1.37 million or so abortions in the U.S. and every one of the 42 million abortions worldwide per year is an act of murder, I would think you wouldn't be content to be a peaceful activist.

It would be far worse than the Holocaust! Wars have been fought over less than 42 million murders per year!

If you really thought these millions of abortions were the same as murder, maybe you wouldn't opt for vigilante justice, but I find it hard to believe you'd just write your Congressman or whatever it is you're currently doing about it.

Your argument from incredulity and Zookeeper Fallacy are duly noted.

 

[RandFan]

How about this line of thinking: I contend that even meat eaters draw a line (based on moral principles) about what is OK and what is not OK to eat.

For example, few people are comfortable eating their pets (which are sort of honorary humans). Some people would draw that line at eating non-human primates. Even the Donner Party, when faced with the necessity of cannibalism for survival attempted to draw lines based on relatedness. (In a way, these are all questions of phylogeny. How recent a common ancestor do we have with potential food.)

Non meat-eaters just draw a different line. Some of us draw the line at animals (or even a subset of animals--those that have a face and a mother). Some won't eat any animal product.

At any rate, the fact that I am convinced that where I draw the line is right for me, it does not follow that I'm crusading to make others draw the same line. Nor does it mean that I think other lines are necessarily wrong.

I think there are few vegetarians and vegans who actually view the mistreatment and slaughter of animals as the moral equivalent of the same hypothetical treatment of humans. (It's similar to an argument made about most "pro-lifers"--if they really thought abortion is the equivalent of murder, wouldn't these wacko extremist clinic bombers and doctor-assassins be the only ones acting according to their beliefs?)

I for one do not think the mistreatment and slaughter of animals is the moral equivalent of the same treatment of humans. However, I also don't think my gustatory preference is enough to justify the mistreatment and slaughter of animals.

I can't find anything to disagree with.

 

[Mark6]

Really? People claimed that they were morally superior? You sure it wasn't a misunderstanding?

Here is an unambiguous example:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51033&page=8

Read posts by "Lord Hillyer" (banned)

 

[Mark6]

Your argument from incredulity and Zookeeper Fallacy are duly noted.

What is Zookeeper Fallacy? I found nothing on Google on it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The only difference was that they stayed in a fixed location and farmed.

"Only"!!?? Anthropologists refer to this difference as the Neolithic Revolution because it was . . . . well, a revolutionary change.

A hunter gather existence is quite flexible and people from such can adapt to an agricultural one. However one can't go back. In other words the human species has become more specialized.

You need a better analogy.

I'm not making any analogy.

I'm using the same argument that you used--the "We evolved to be meat eaters therefore vegetarianism is unnatural" (or however you care to word it).

I'm pointing out that since we evolved to be hunter-gatherers, by the same reasoning, isn't it unnatural to live in houses/fixed communities and farm?

You answered that we can't go back and that humans have become more specialized (both statements could be applied to vegetarianism), but you haven't answered my question.

Isn't it unnatural the same way vegetarianism is unnatural (in that it isn't what our ancestors did at some point in the past)?

Again, for anyone coming in late, I'm not trying to persuade anyone to become vegetarian. I think reasonable minds can disagree on this point. I'm just trying to refute the argument that vegetarianism goes against our nature, or that we are somehow meant (by Mother Nature? by our genes?) to be meat eaters.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Your argument from incredulity and Zookeeper Fallacy are duly noted.

I'm not trying to start an abortion debate here.
ETA: It can go here if you like.

I was pointing out that my position on meat-eating isn't one that is preachy or absolute--that I don't see killing animals for food as equivalent to the murder of human beings. (I also contend that it's that way for most vegetarians, BTW. We live in a McDonald's society, after all.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Here is an unambiguous example:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51033&page=8

Read posts by "Lord Hillyer" (banned)

Wow!

Still. . I think people with that attitude are an extreme minority.

I think at least some people think anyone who chooses to be a vegetarian is automatically assuming a holier-than-thou attitude. I've been accused of that myself, even though I make it abundantly clear that I do not consider myself morally superior to anyone because I don't eat meat. (In "real life" I rarely speak of vegetarianism or being a vegetarian. Just like in "real life" I rarely speak of atheism or being an atheist.)

 

[AWPrime]

"Only"!!?? Anthropologists refer to this difference as the Neolithic Revolution because it was . . . . well, a revolutionary change.

Only on certain levels.

I'm not making any analogy.

Please don't try and pretend...

I'm pointing out that since we evolved to be hunter-gatherers, by the same reasoning, isn't it unnatural to live in houses/fixed communities and farm?

Even hunter gatherers have houses, usually portable huts. And even farmers hunted. The biological distinction isn't all that great.
Its social, farming communities have a much better change of keeping their territories and thus can out compete hunter-gathers, although the latter usually have better health. However farming raised the population, destroyed the wildlife environment and introduced stronger competition thus making going back impossible.

It was a social revolution, not a biological one. Try again.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Only on certain levels.

What? The Neolithic Revolution was a major change in the way humans lived. It affected pretty much every part of human life and civilization (or rather was the beginning of true civilization).

Please don't try and pretend...

I'm not pretending. This is not an analogy. This is the very same argument you used.

It was a social revolution, not a biological one. Try again.

So what? Are you suggesting that vegetarianism is a biological and not a social issue?

Again, I'm not arguing by analogy. You've argued that it's unnatural to be vegetarian. Why doesn't this argument apply to the changes that happened in the New Stone Age?

 

[AWPrime]

Sorry, I can't take you serious anymore, your example doesn't have anything to do with this discussion but you don't seem to be getting it or just don't want to get it.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Hmmmm, nothing new to see here.

Oh well, I think I'm gonna go have a nice steak and a couple blood sausages on the side.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sorry, I can't take you serious anymore, your example doesn't have anything to do with this discussion but you don't seem to be getting it or just don't want to get it.

My question is neither an example nor an analogy. I'm sorry you don't understand how it is germane to this discussion. I'll review:

You contend that vegetarianism is unnatural because we evolved to be meat-eaters. I point out that we also evolved to be hunter-gatherers, so does it not follow that the Neolithic Revolution (living in houses in relatively fixed communities and farming for sustenance) was unnatural? (This is the question that is not an example or an analogy.)

You add a non sequitur that it is impossible for humans to live without shelter. You try to argue that the Neolithic Revolution wasn't such a big change. You say it was just social and not biological revolution and ignore my question about whether vegetarianism is social or biological.

Then you throw up your hands and say that you can't take me seriously because I don't get it.

Sounds like you're just ducking a legitimate challenge to your argument.

 

[politas]

I think at least some people think anyone who chooses to be a vegetarian is automatically assuming a holier-than-thou attitude. I've been accused of that myself, even though I make it abundantly clear that I do not consider myself morally superior to anyone because I don't eat meat. (In "real life" I rarely speak of vegetarianism or being a vegetarian. Just like in "real life" I rarely speak of atheism or being an atheist.)

So your vegetarianism is not a moral choice?

Seems to me that anyone who considers vegetariansim/veganism to be a moral choice, and who is a vegetarian/vegan as a result, must consider themselves morally superior to non vegetarian/vegans, at least in respect of food choices.

Otherwise, you aren't talking about a moral choice, but a preference.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Seems to me that anyone who considers vegetariansim/veganism to be a moral choice, and who is a vegetarian/vegan as a result, must consider themselves morally superior to non vegetarian/vegans, at least in respect of food choices.

Otherwise, you aren't talking about a moral choice, but a preference.

I disagree.

By your thinking, any time there is a moral disagreement between two people, one side or the other must consider themselves morally superior.

Or does this rule only apply to vegetarianism/veganism? If so, why?

In ethics and morality discussions, they often use situations that have no clear right answer. Yet most people do feel that one way is right and the other wrong. Their choice doesn't mean they feel morally superior to someone who disagrees.